update_discount_position

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose that this is a write operation (though readOnlyHint=false already indicates that), nor does it explain effects on existing data, validation, or required permissions. No contradiction with annotations, but no additional value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It omits essential information about required fields and editable properties, making it closer to the 'Process' anti-example than to a well-structured description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 3 required fields, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. There is no explanation of how discount positions relate to quotes/orders/invoices, what fields are editable, or what the tool returns. The description is far from minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides no information about parameters. The schema covers only 50% of parameters (document_id, position_id, kb_document_type have descriptions; text, value, is_percentual do not). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving unclear semantics for key fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Edit a discount position' uses a clear verb and specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_discount_position and delete_discount_position. However, it lacks any detail about what editable fields or document types are involved, so it is clear but not exceptionally rich.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the requirement to specify kb_document_type, document_id, and position_id, nor does it explain scenarios such as creating a new discount position instead of editing an existing one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.